Case Assignment
In Washington, as well as in any other state of the United States, much attention is paid to the idea of the development of effective education for every American student and appropriate financing options. There are many local, state, and federal education resources with the help of which students may achieve their goals and demonstrate their best academic qualities. In this case, such categories as state and local support, net tuition and fees, and total educational revenues which can be available to full-time students will be discussed and compared to the U.S. average in 2011.
For example, in 2011, state and local public higher education support per full-time student in Washington State was approximately $5,708.00 (NCHEMS Information Center for Higher Education Policymaking and Analysis, 2011b). In the same year, the United States average was a little bit higher, $6,290.00. On the one hand, it is possible to say that the results of Washington were not as good as it was expected to compare the results of Alaska where students obtained the sum of $14,827.00 or even New Mexico where about $7,791.00 were offered as the type of support under discussion. On the other hand, such states like Kansas, Utah, Ohio, or Indiana demonstrated even lower results with state and local support of $3,035.00 per full-time student in Vermont. In general, in 2011, Washington possessed the 28th rank among all 50 American States. It is hard to define one particular position and supports it all the time because there are no clear positive or negative aspects. Washington students have a portion of support at local and state levels. Though this type of help is not the highest among all American states, it is still not the smallest. So that, Washington students have all chances to use offered help and expect that some improvements can be observed in the future regarding the fact that the U.S. average is higher than the actual sum available to Washington.
Another aspect that can be used for the analysis is net tuition and fees available for Washington full-time students. In comparison to the rank of state and local support, the rank of Washington in the category of net tuition and fees is lower, the 42nd place. The state value in this category was $3,004.00 in 2011 compared to Delaware with its highest value of $13,402.00 and Vermont with $12,731.00 for net tuition and fees for full-time students (NCHEMS Information Center for Higher Education Policymaking and Analysis, 2011a). The U.S. average was $4,774.00. Though the results of Washington were not the lowest, including Wyoming ($1,794.00) and New Mexico ($2,289.00), this state could be hardly proud of the results achieved. The representatives in education finance should think about the perspectives which could be available to their students to create appropriate learning opportunities. However, the fact that Washington students should pay lower net tuition and fees compared to other states of America may serve as strong evidence that it is not necessary to pay a lot in order to obtain a good portion of knowledge and opportunities. It is necessary to follow the rules and avoid all possible complications.
Finally, there is a category called “Total Educational Revenues per Full-Time Equivalent Student” with Washington on its last but one position, $8,712.00 (NCHEMS Information Center for Higher Education Policymaking and Analysis, 2011c). The only state that has a lower position in 2011 was Florida with its $8,149.00. On the average, United States of America had $11,016.00 in 2011. Alaska ($20,348.00) and Delaware (19,001.00), as it is expected after the evaluation of their net tuition and fees results, have the highest ranks in this particular category. Total educational revenue includes the sum of money taken from net tuition and state and local support. Washington is lower than the U.S. average in all three categories promoting the necessity to improve the work of revenue-raising authorities like the representatives of California finance and education sectors did since 1972 (EdSource, 2009). Though Washington does not take the lowest position in the list, it is still close to it. Public schools in America face certain financial problems, and the search for an appropriate solution is the goal that has to be achieved in a short period of time (Levenson, 2007). Some states are ready to introduce positive results and improvements for their students, teachers, and other stakeholders. Washington is not on the top of the list proving that new steps and programs have to be taken into consideration to improve and raise total educational revenues.
In conclusion, it is necessary to underline that the results in the three chosen categories are far from the U.S. average. As a rule, Washington’s ranks are lower proving that the state under analysis can hardly be characterized as the best representative of the American finance and education systems. Additional funding at local, state, and federal levels is required to avoid further complications, misunderstandings, and inappropriate situations when schools and students cannot find out the conditions under which enough knowledge is offered, appropriate material is available, and no challenges are observed among teachers and students.
SLP
In the state of Washington, there are many categories that play an important role in the field of education, including the enrollment of adult learners in colleges, the level of poverty among American families, and children in particular, graduation rates, and the percent of family income that may be required to pay for college education. All these factors are integral in every American state, and Washington is not an exception. The comparison of these measures in Washington and the rest of the country can be used to comprehend of if all Americans face the same problems and challenges in the educational field, or if there are some other factors, like location, the government (federal, state, and local levels), or the development of the region can influence citizens’ education and their further growth and improvements. In this part of the work, four measures that may influence people’s education will be discussed to understand if the state of Washington meets the standards of the country, and what improvements may be expected in the nearest period of time.
One of the most integral questions raised among the citizens of Washington, as well as the representatives of other states, includes the importance to deal with poverty and improve the quality of a human life. Education is the field that directly depends on the poverty level and the possibility to change the situation and provide people with new opportunities and possibilities. The last results of the investigation conducted by the representatives of NCHEMS Information Center were introduced in 2007 and stated that Washington’s level of families in power was about 7.8%. Taking into consideration the fact that the average level of poverty in American families at that period of time was 9.5%, the results of the state of Washington were neither the worst nor the best ones (NCHEMS Information Center for Higher Education Policymaking and Analysis, 2007c). For example, such states as New Hampshire had only 4.6% of families suffering from poverties. It was the state with the best results in 2007. Missouri and Louisiana remained to be the poorest states with 16.3% and 14.6% respectively during the last three decades. Washington, Missouri, and Louisiana took almost the same positions in 2007 regarding the level of poverty among children. The only difference was that Washington changed its position from 32nd to 31st in poverty ratings among families.
Today, such states like Missouri, Illinois, New York, and Texas are still the place where children have to attend schools in higher-poverty districts and cannot achieve the required local and state revenues which are available to students from lover-poverty districts (Baker & Corcoran, 2012). In its turn, Washington has not reached the average of the country in this category yet, meaning that the government and its citizens are still able to cooperate and create appropriate conditions for living, learning, and working.
In the field of education, a certain attention is also paid to the percent of family income that may be needed to pay for college (NCHEMS Information Center for Higher Education Policymaking and Analysis, 2007b). As well as in many other categories, the state of Washington does not reach the U.S. average that is 16.9% and has only 16.5%. In this measure, Pennsylvania takes the first place with 23.2%, and Maine follows it with its 22.2%. The last place in this category belongs to Wyoming (9.3%). Payment for college includes tuition, room and board costs, and other additional institutional expenses.
Regarding such clarifications and understanding of family income, it is necessary to say that the less the percent is, the better financial conditions for Americans are. Washington is almost in the middle of the list proving that the citizens of the state are not challenged a lot by the necessity to pay for education. Still, they should be ready to work hard to continue their education.
Another important category that helps to recognize the challenges in higher education finance and opportunities is connected with the number of adult learners and their intentions to use state, local, and federal resources to receipt revenue in order to improve their knowledge and achieve new goals. In 2007, West Virginia and Mississippi had 25.1% of adults from 18 to 65 years who could not earn for living due to the absence of higher education and the presence of incomes below a living wage (NCHEMS Information Center for Higher Education Policymaking and Analysis, 2007a).
In Washington, there were only 12.4% of such adults who were in need of higher education. However, even if the results of Washington were lower the average of the United States (16.6%), such states as Hawaii and New Hampshire had lower results (9.9% and 9.0%) proving that Americans have all chances to decrease the existing poverty rates that influence education.
Adults should understand that they can ask for governmental help at any age. What they have to do is to demonstrate their true intentions to learn, abilities to search for appropriate financial resources, and readiness to take responsibilities for each academic decision made.
The final measure for consideration is graduation and its rates in different stages of America. The average of this category is 29.1%. For the first time, Washington is located above this number and has the rate of 45.8% competing with such states as Alaska (68.2%), South Dakota (60.3%), Nevada (56.8%), Florida (53%), and Wyoming (47.4%). To be on the list of the leaders in this category is a real contribution to the state demonstrating the abilities of students to choose correct academic fields and achieve positive results. This category is the outcome that proves how effective federal, state, and local resources of academic revenue can be.
It is expected that people who graduate from public schools have to think about their participation in schools’ lives and solicit grants from families or friends (Levenson, 2007). Only in case the exchange of experience, knowledge, and respect occurs in American schools, education may be obtained at its highest level.
In general, the evaluation of different measures of higher education policies in the state of Washington and its comparison with other states of the country turn out to be a good opportunity to understand what makes good education in America and clarify which states have already obtained good results, and which states have to work hard to provide their students with effective options. Though Washington does not demonstrate the best results and is usually located close to the average of the country, its citizens have access to many federal, local, and state resources for their further education. Missouri and Louisiana are the states where new policies and programs have to be developed to decrease the level of poverty, and such states as New Hampshire and Hawaii have enough good conditions for receiving higher education by their citizens.
Discussion Question Assignment
In the United States, public education depends on cooperation that can be developed between certain local, state, and federal governments (National Education Association, 2014). Unfortunately, almost each academic year, educational organizations face financial problems in terms of which equity and adequacy have to be achieved even if budgets have to be cut and new programs have to be developed (Baker & Corcoran, 2012). There are two main methods that can be used for budget cutting, including targeting specific budgets for reduction or making across-the-board reductions. Both methods are characterized by certain positive and negative aspects, and each organization has to decide which way is more appropriate in a particular situation. I believe that the idea to target specific budget areas to reduce or eliminate is more favorable for educational organizations comparing to the idea of the across-the-board spending cut. First, the across-the-board method requires many efforts and much time to be developed with all necessary resources, foundation employment details, and various fundraising issues (Levenson, 2007). It may happen that an educational organization has to cut its budget to solve one particular problem. Department leaders have to focus on one area and think about the changes that can be appropriate for this problematic area, not the whole system. A second reason to choose one specific area for budget cutting is the inability to prepare all areas in a short period of time. It is wrong to punish all departments in case one area works poorly. In order not to frustrate all employees and diminish their enthusiasm and intentions to work hard, it is necessary to work on the weaknesses and problems in one area and improve it with time using the examples of the areas where no problems occur.
References
EdSource. (2009). Local revenues for schools: Limits and options in California. Web.
Levenson, S. (2007). Big-time fundraising for today’s schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
NCHEMS Information Center for Higher Education Policymaking and Analysis. (2011a). Revenues and Support: Net tuition and fees per full-time student. Web.
NCHEMS Information Center for Higher Education Policymaking and Analysis. (2011b). Revenues and support: State and local public higher education support per full-time equivalent student. Web.
NCHEMS Information Center for Higher Education Policymaking and Analysis. (2011c). Revenue and support: Total educational revenues per full-time equivalent student. Web.
Baker, B., & Corcoran, S. (2012). The stealth inequities of school funding: How state and local school finance systems perpetuate inequitable student spending. Web.
Levenson, S. (2007). Big-time fundraising for today’s schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
NCHEMS Information Center for Higher Education Policymaking and Analysis. (2007a). Adult learners: Percent of 18 to 64 years olds who have just a high school diploma or less, and are living in families with incomes below a living wage. Web.
NCHEMS Information Center for Higher Education Policymaking and Analysis. (2007b). Net cost of attendance: Percent of family income needed to pay for college. Web.
NCHEMS Information Center for Higher Education Policymaking and Analysis. (2007c). Poverty: Families in poverty. Web.
Baker, B., & Corcoran, S. (2012). The stealth inequities of school funding: How state and local school finance systems perpetuate inequitable student spending. Web.
Levenson, S. (2007). Big-time fundraising for today’s schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
National Education Association. (2014). Rankings estimates & rankings of the states 2013 and estimates of school statistics 2014. Web.